I try to point out that fractals are in relation to one another. I also try to point out that there is a pattern. Using deductive logic, it turns out that anyone can build his mind with these considerations in mind. Think about how some people see up, down, up down up down over and over. In another thread there is a conversation about the probability of things repeating. It is suggested that 12 out of 20 times the up down pattern rerpeats. From that the person participating weave their ways to the fact that this is an "edge" and from that comes the deep and abaiding concept of letting winner ride and cutting loser short ASAP. People believe this and act upon it and make X percent a year. It may be possible to see the pattern on my charts. Long goes B2B 2R 2B. Short goes R2R 2B 2R. Also, perhaps a person can see that three moves complete a pattern. In those three moves are four volume moves leading price. Up down is not a complete pattern. I read the price moves as left, right, left right, etc., as a matter of fact. If a person can see trends (the topic I felt was the topic of the thread) have containers, it may be possible to see that any pattern in a container has three moves. Two moves cause it to be possible to make a container. I make them ahead of time, anyways because I know I know the order of events. What you are looking at is seven bars that begin a pattern and the pattern cannot go forward any further. The pattern started on bar 36 at the end of the prior pattern that ended on bar 37. This is a "context" that is arrived at by looking at thre fractals and keeping them nested in a way that simply comes from completing fractals. some people look and call this orientation bizzare. It certainly is to them. they do not have minds that are dirrerentiated with respect to the logic of patterns, fractals and how fractals are nested by logical deductions. their minds have a vacuum or are empty or have hubris in the locations that could be filled. The mind deos not erase easily. The required biochemicals are not created easily and if they ar they are slow acting. Even before this, there has to be a mental reason to create erasing. At bar 37 a short pattern begins on a BBT level. So do all faster fractals. They all begin in concert at the same moment. Lets say there are 10 faster fractals. This means some are very fast. Go down to the tick level of granularity. Three trades of one contract each can give three price moves; but it is not possible to have four volume moves at that level. So a few more contracts are invloved as a minimum. Now, go back to your observation beginning at the wrong annotated time. You made some rules for annotating as you do. those rules are foreign to me in the sense that I do not use them but I do observe others being arbitrary. Being arbitrary does not solve deductive opportunities. It creates a sense of noise and anomalies. My person approach is to not have noise or anomalies since they are unreasonable and unreasoned. The alternative is to have an paradigm that is unflawed in any way. I begin on bar 37 to have a BBT short based on completing a BBT long pattern. The overlap of patterns is a deductive conclusion. During this period the old pattern is dominant.hvereds and only the new pattern is being formed in three parts or movements. Each of these has a RTL and is composed of its own three movements, etc and ad nauseum. I must form an rtl for the short BBT. Here, in logic, we can deal with inequalities. By considering what is required for the short RTL to fail, I get around to the fact that if it is sloped positively, then a short is not possible. Because ticks are so large in granularity, this is never in doubt and when binary vectors are used things get simple. logically speaking. as you see more and more of my charts, you may recognize I slip limiting cases in when it is important. I am trading and on the right side of the market all the time. But occasionally , I do have to switch sides. from bar 37 onward I am short looking for point 2 of the BBT. It is on bar 40, so I am long now and looking for point 3. Notice I get my money's worth on this hold long. Your platform has a snippet on it that turns the background green. It is there because it is from the library of the platform provider because it was given to the programming staff of the corporation based in Colorado that has been working for three years to get their platform repaired. The color we have placed on that platform as a consequence of persuasion, is there for you. we are in a short tape and after point 3 of the short tape and going from point 3 to the ftt of the tape. So far we have put in some bars to get to point 2 of the short BBT 3 of the short tape. then the green appears. I logically determine that the short BTT 3 move 1 on sub 1 has just been cancelled. the logical reason is that the point 3 of the BBT 3 CANNOT BE FULFILLED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER EVER. THE LONG i AM MAKING MONEY IN IS JUST MAKING MORE MONEY THAN POSSIBLE FOR A FUTURE SUB SHORT TO EVER COMPLETE THE BBT 3 SO IT GOES TO THE SHORT TAPE FTT. I know all of this because I put it in my mind a while back and it comes to mind as I trade unconsciously and competently. It is my job to help you out. So I do it. I could pose a Q for you to figure out. I could tell you you made a mistake. What I do is inform you by persenting the logic of the matter. All expert minds in SCT get the correct long term memory support at all times. it is because we give drills to those who work to differentiate their minds. I simply squash the sub 1 short back into the BBT 2 long and let the sub 2 long continue to finish off the last sub 3 long of the BBT 2 long. that gets done by bar 47. this, then is a new point 3 on the short tape. since it is I FAN the RTL to show that. What do I do at any point on a tape or BBT? I reverse to take the next sub to the next point 2 it gets to. On bar 55 I finally finsih BBT 3 and the short ape has its FTT there. now we get to build a long tape out of three BBT's. As you see the long BBT is still under way and I have had to fan TWICE so far in building the BBT 1 out oif subs. So I repeat all of the above squashing and resuming and fanning my way to the next place to exit the market because the day has, yet again ended. al I do is MADA. I answer three Q's each lap of MADA. I am on the correct side of the market making money. I do not do anything arbitrary, ever. I keep all patterns rolling, fractals nested, and I annotate the leading indicators of ES price (seven of them). So this is an interesting thread. The vendor OP has proved he cannot follow trends. What I typed will help you. Keep annotating so you see patterns completing on at least three fractals. The one you trade has to be in the middle. You see me trading subs. So I am observing sub subs. I log 10 to 12 pages a day in 12 columns. I am only 77 going on 80. Please take the trouble to do MADA and keep organized. Make a list of the 25 trades today. What would doing 2 to 4 of them properly, yield? Using the rest of the time to keep things straight would be fun too. What doi you thinkj it is like for a person who could not trade today? What is that person doing? He is frightened, anziious all the time, fearful for being in the market. A person like that could say the thread is off topic. he could say there were no BO's today. He could come back to the thread and think it was off topic. So what happens next? There is a flood of detractors and the moderator buries the thread in his fav place for TA threads of high quality. We all have another laugh on ET. YVW, my pleasure. Good question too. you are saving a lot of learning time by asking good Q's. So I am giving you a real workout.
I enjoy a good workout. . . . thank you very much for such a detailed and informative answer. this is very clear and completely understood. . . . excellent
I try to point out you don't trade anymore and after 50 years you are as poor as a church mouse. So much so in fact you have to live off your partner and out of her house, way to go Jack.
Hi Jez, Trend following as a methodology was never meant to produce a super smooth or even just smooth equity curve. Look at the track records of guys like Dunn or Salem Abraham (both publically available and easily accessible) - they have several negative months and a fair few negative years over the longterm. I know Abraham has had 5 losing months in a row at least once or twice, and several more streaks of 3 in a row. So I don't think trend following is dying, not at all. These last few months/year has not brought about anything out of the ordinary. Trend following is about home runs and exceptional raw performance over a long time frame. And with 19%pa over 35 years for Dunn and 24%pa over 21 years for Abraham, I think the evidence is clear. Trends are a fundamental part of markets. As long as there are markets, there will always be trends. Nizar.
Before we can test the validity of your vague statements, the first step is to define the term TREND. Anecdotal evidence means nothing to someones portfolio, just like the term TREND means nothing without being defined in a way that can be tested. How specifically do you define trend? thanks!
You seem to be a nice sincere person. However, you are completely and utterly on the wrong track following this nonsense. Just a heads up. Sony
Trend is a scientific element in trading when using the Pool Extraction Paradigm where PEP is the foundation of what I do. Volume leads price in trends as stated in the HS and its PM. My definition of trend, therefore is simple, precise (exact) and of very high utility. Trend expresses the sentiment of an instrument in a market at all times. That is 13 words and a very clear defined high utilty definition. Trend makes it possible on any trading fractal to always know the correct market side of two possible sides (this has very high utility and precision). Implementing the use of trend as a foundation is merely a mechanical process that results from the application of logic. There is a chapter in Covel (page 255 ,etc.) which is very appropriate for most of the posters in this thread. It is entitled "Trend Following Confusion Reigns". I do not follow trends. I use trends to trade. Trends are seminal and their synthesis from the granularity of any market is a flawless construct without noise or anomaly. All money is made in partnership with the market. The market tells you its sentiment and you use it to make the market's offer through the RTH's. I have no axe to grind nor do I judge the views or opinions of others on this matter. As you say, I do what I do. PEP is deductively derived and it and its applications are complete systems of highest utility for extracting the market's offer. Yesterday, the 25 trades using "trending" were the real deal for me in how I partner with the market to take its offer according the segments of profit that are determined by trend and the sentiment that trend represents. Through volume leading price, the sentiment (trend) of the market is always known. One of the unique third party aspects of the high utility of PEP and its applications using trend as the foundation is the SEC multi-year effort with regard to the application. You can ask any poster in ET if and when he was cited over and over for "insider trading" and exactly what the consequence was. I could use the same words to describe the SEC that people in this thread, who lack a means of thinking about things unfamiliar, direct at the charts they observe. It was bizzare to be cited over and over for doing illegal trading whose profile duplicated insider trading by using trend analysis. The key consideration of trend analysis is when analysis happens. It is a leading analytical effort relative to price action. This is unknown to most people who view "what I do". They, for whatever reason believe I think as they do. I don't. Larry Harris explains all of this in his seminal book. They are unfamiliar with the box I am squashed into, apparently. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. I find it to be very rational to use trend analysis as a parasitic tool for front running smart money. The commentators here find it bizarre. I find it bizarre that the SEC had to be straightened out over and over until they got it straight that there were parasitic traders who could front run smart money using trend analysis. The conclusion that can be made about trend analysis relative to its efficiency and effectiveness is that 135 observable elements depict the minimum cycle order for one cycle where five nested fractal levels are involved. Certainly sub loops occur and the fact that they are present is known in advance. and does not detract from the money velocity of the continuing extraction going on all of the time. What happens to ignorant people is they either choose to become informed or they continue their ignorance by choice. For me, there is no personal effect. For them, they always get the consequences of their choice. there is a myth in their culture. It goes like this: "If you tell others what you do, then it won't work anymore". That may be true for inductive mthods, but it is a myth for deductively derived approaches. To make money a person has to be on the correct side of the market. Trend defines the correct side as an expression of market sentiment. So I chose an HS and its PM to always have the sentiment defined by trend. This approach is unique in the world according to the literature. as has been stated there is nothing new, apparently. What is not apparent as yet is what it means to choose the correct PM or its HS. You can see that no one uses anything but probabilities to trade. This mistake is very apparent by looking at the results. Not making the mistake is a necessity to be able to take the market's offer all the time. I view the markets as a left/right deal instead of up/down. I also do not do entry/exit trading. I do hold/reversal trading. It is a mistake to do it any other way. What is it like to use logic for trading? Everything is certain. The routine of trading (MADA) is NOT gambling oriented as is the CW OODA orientation. Yesterday, the market was blamed for a lot of things by a lot of people. I posted the BO's of the trends that occurred as an alternative. Most people are adults and have personalities and character. They got the way they are by their cultural and educational efforts. The CW of the financial industry is what you see in the choices and behavior of these people. they have a measuring stick for everything financial, they think. Too bad that it cannot be used to measure anything outside of the CW realm. ET has a putrid affliction that I get to put up with daily. The set of OCD detractors on ET are almost as rabid as the people using the word bizarre here. As a rational person I pass this off as part of the right of membership. I cannot expect the moderators to understand the science of trading and its breadth. Detractors are allowed to do what they do, since there is no capability to deal with it. If you can't define trend or know what it is, as Covel proved, it is okay to post and/or be published. Volume proves the two orthogonal conditions of trend in a leading manner. Price lags volume so it is a consequence of the logic of markets. The orthogonal natue of the market condition is proven by choosing the proper market measure. Two variables give two conditions that are NOT opposites. What could have greater utility than two orthogonal conditions? Most people do not recognize how advances and retraces in trends work or when they are occurring. This being obscured causes the major mental condition of people; this condition is acknowledged in all research and studies: fear, anxiety and anger. Any CW oriented trader can explain it quite well since it is the continuing experience. Also look at the occurrence of retraces and reversals. They are immediately distinguishable in trend analysis. Most people are unable to distinguish them as different until well after the fact. The HS is based on trend and that is why "trending" is used in each hypothesis. By taking the two hypotheses together and then adding their parametric measure, you have the precise definition, in mathematical terms, of trend. I began to use this over 53 years ago. By measuring trends using binary vectors, you always know that you know to hold or reverse. It is a cool way to make the paradigm serve the purpose of making profit segments in a timely manner. All of this is in contrast to the bizarre concept of "edges". LOL... From the programming and ATS point of view, it is very convenient and un-complex to use logic to trade. Boolean Algebra always expresses certainty. Since the market can be measured using binary vectors, everything falls into place quite quickly. The years I spent in theoretical physics with staff from the Manhattan Project educating me, proved conclusively to me that there was no market application of the associated maths. People who worked that turf in that way were just part of sales and marketing pitches to get and retain clients. If Ms Born had been able to operate and get past Greenspan, who later said she was on the ball, we would not be where we are going today. Too bad. Ignorance rules.